Featured Does regeneration precede faith?

I looked a little at your link. The first thing I noticed was this:
He stated his Calvinistic presuppositions. Then based on those presuppositions declared that the rendering sometimes given to the verse (such as I gave it) must be absolutely wrong. On that basis (a false premise), he sets out to prove the verse's interpretation must fit his own paradigm.
Don't you see some inconsistencies there?

Consider the verse:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

and in the Greek:
2 Peter 2:1 εγενοντο δε και ψευδοπροφηται εν τω λαω ως και εν υμιν εσονται ψευδοδιδασκαλοι οιτινες παρεισαξουσιν αιρεσεις απωλειας και τον αγορασαντα αυτους δεσποτην αρνουμενοι επαγοντες εαυτοις ταχινην απωλειαν

Concerning the word, "Lord" or "δεσποτης."
The word occurs 10 times in the NT.
5 times it is translated as "Lord," 4 times as "master," and once as "master" (Lord)
In the last case, 2:21:
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
--It, of course, refers to Christ.

Simeon's prayer:
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

As you can see 6 out of the 10 times it is used the word despotes refers to Jesus Christ our Lord.
It definitely is used in the sense of our sovereign Lord in Acts 4:24, Jude 1:4 and Rev.6:10. In these cases one must recognize Him as such in order to be saved.

Concerning the word "bought"
Strong's says:

Note: Especially to redeem; to buy to redeem. That is the meaning of the word.

Remember Hosea. The Lord sent him back to the market place, to the slave market to buy back, to purchase his wife, to redeem her and bring her back again.
That is a picture of redemption.

The purchase price has been paid. It has been paid for all mankind. If it is refused there is nothing that can be done about it. That price must be gladly accepted and received as payment paid. Jesus paid it all. He paid it with his blood. The justice of God was satisfied. The slave must take that gift and receive it and then be thankful to the one who provided it--the great Judge himself.

These false teachers denied that Christ paid for their salvation, that he was the purchase price. They refused this doctrine that Jesus paid for their sins.
Not only did they refuse the doctrine, they denied the Lord himself.

Obviously these false teachers can't lose the salvation they never had.
But they can denounce a true doctrine as John 3:16 and in doing so unwittingly denounce Calvin's false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

 

We both agree on the Greek word that was used, but you ignore what the article states in regard to the usage of this Greek word as found in the New Testament, ""To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) [B]in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.[/B]"

For verses with this Greek word are used in a redemptive sense are plainly laid out by the author and and apply only to believers (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4).

If a ransom was paid (which I think we both agree it was, we just differ on the "for whom" question), then the criminal is free! If Christ paid the ransom for all mankind, then nobody would go to Hell!

Also, if you believe that Greek for "bought" is used in a redemptive manner ( I contend it is not) for that verse in Peter, you have the problem of people who are redeemed going to Hell!

I call you "brother" and truly believe you are! However, you are implying that the false teachers in that verse in Peter are specifically those that hold to the doctrine of the limited atonement and thus if they continue to hold and teach that they are on their way to hell! Is this what you believe? If it is, what scripture do you hold to that contends that those trusting solely in the redeemed work of Christ on Calvary can go to Hell? This is what you would be saying if you believe all the teachers of a limited atonement are spoken of in this Peter verse.

 

Greetings Willis! Glad you decided to talk to me again. :thumbs:

This passage is not a good pick for your position. The "spirit" referred to here is his own, not the Holy Spirit.

All are saved by faith. God actually indwelling a believer is the New Covenant. It's remarkable that believers do not understand the difference between the OT covenant and the NT covenant. Both are by faith, the NEW covenant is God In You!!!!!!!!! Born-again!!!!

 

I will wait to discuss that particular word.

That is not true. A governor can give a pardon but a man in jail doesn't have to receive it. There have been times in history where prisoners have refused to be pardoned.
And the same is true in redemption.
I believe that one cam make a case for the redemption of both Ruth and Orpah. If Orpah had made the same confession that Ruth had made and not gone back to her idolatrous ways, would she not also be redeemed. But she made the choice. No one compelled her. There is free will at work. What made Ruth freely choose to follow and Orpah freely choose to reject? Did God love the one and hate the other? Not at all! That is a ludicrous conclusion and does injustice to the passage in Romans 9.

No redeemed person is going to hell. You are defining "redeemed" within the confines and strictures put in place by Calvin and can't think outside of that box.
Redemption was provided for Naomi and Ruth. But they could have rejected it. They could have run back to Moab if they so desired. It was a gift that they had to receive.
Rahab had to receive the salvation offered by Joshua and the Israelites.
The wife of Hosea could have run away from Hosea, but she willingly went back with Hosea. The purchase price was paid. But she still had to make the choice to go back with him.

I believe firmly that Christ died for the sins of the world, all the world.
To deny that truth, so firmly taught scripture after after scripture, is erroneous. Peter named it as a false doctrine "limited atonement."
That doe not mean that all who believe in limited atonement have lost their salvation or are on their way to hell. No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that Peter points out how serious a denial of the doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the world, is.

 

Apostle John......"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

I certainly hope you understand the many workings of the Holy Spirit. Being able to speak on behalf of God does not equate to the NT rebirth. Certainly Balaam's dumb ass wasn't regenerated.

Really? This suffices for an explanation for you? Why don't we just let the Evangelist John's explanation stand, after all, it is crystal clear.....

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". "But this he spake he of the Spirit!!!!!!!!! And this work of the Spirit was not yet given!!!!!! The Comforter!!!!

"Living Water" is the Holy Spirit IN YOU, regeneration, new creation. John says THIS miracle was NOT YET GIVEN.

Jesus said, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." He always dwelled WITH people, after Jesus' glorification, He shall be IN YOU!

How can anyone possibly miss this???

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
​

Again, how can Christians miss this point???

 

Now that is certainly a first. There is no such interpretation from any Bible commentator of any stripe that would assert that foolish contention of DHK.

Did you bother to read verses that follow which describe these false teachers?

They have "shameful ways"

They have "greed" even "experts" in it

They "heap abuse on celestial beings"

They are like "unreasoning animals"

They "carouse in broad daylight"

And many more citations can be added from the rest of chapter 2.

Do you honestly think that those who believe in particular redemption can be characterized by those qualities listed in the bulk of 2 Peter 2? Really? Think more carefully.

 

"No, I am not saying that."

Ha, you are indeed. You contradict yourself so often. Back in your post #95 you said that the doctrine of limited atonement is "damnable heresy." Can't you even remember what you have posted? Do you even understand what damnable heresy means?

Now you are trying to extricate yourself --and it is laughable to watch.

 

Exactly. This is Deuteronomy 32:6:

Is this the way you repay the Lord,
you foolish and unwise people?
Is he not your Father, your Creator,
who made you and formed you? (NIV)

The ones described in Deut. 32:6 and 2 Peter 2:1 fall under the same category. God the Father has ownership of them by His authority and power. But nothing salvific is intended.

 

See... The problem is--actually, your problem is--that you've decided on the statement of one verse, not the biblical story in its entirety, what you think is going on. In fact, the entirety of scripture stands against your errant presupposition which is born of a very myopic, self-serving exercise in proof-texting.

The Archangel

 

No. They were false teachers who taught damnable heresies and their lifestyles also characterized their unregenerate state.
Secondly, "Limited Atonement" is only one of many "damnable heresies."

If we go to 1Tim.4:1-5, we find that there are two specific doctrines (among many) that are mentioned as "doctrines of demons."
Believing in either celibacy or a special kind of diet won't send you to hell.
Both "fads" have been practiced by various sects of Christianity down throughout the centuries.

 

You say it such a nonchalant manner. Please define "damnable heresies." I doubt you even know what you are talking about.

 

One verse? Did you read my post? Not only did I give several examples, I gave crystal clear examples. You seem to believe that the Holy Spirit has only one work - regeneration. The WHOLE of scripture gives multiple works of the Holy Spirit - Creation, Inspiration, conviction, Teacher, Living Water, Comforter, those just off of the top of my head without doing a complete exposition.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand what Living water is? Gotta get to bed, I'll let you study that one before answering.....

 

Considering that a heresy is--historically--something that disqualifies the one believing in said heresy from being a true believer, it's clear that DHK has again questioned the salvation of every Calvinist who holds to limited atonement.

But, as we all know, the rules don't apply to him and he gets a free pass from everyone, especially the good Squire, but I digress.......

The Archangel

 

DHK, is a hypocrite --plain & simple.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

Yes... One verse.

Of course.

You gave several examples, but your over-riding hermeneutic comes from the text "the spirit had not yet been given" which cannot mean what you take it to mean.

Not in the least.

First, the Holy Spirit is not "Living Water." The phrase "Living Water" is a metaphor. It refers to and relates to the Spirit, but the Spirit is not liquid.

Second, you seem to think no one in the Old Testament had the Spirit in a regenerative way, which is absurd in the scope of a whole-Bible theology, which you are lacking.

Third, the giving of the Holy Spirit to individuals in the Old Testament was not only for their inspired writings. Of course, David prays in Psalm 51 "do not take your spirit from me." This is not simply a plea for him to keep his ability to write inspired Psalms.

Fourth, just because the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not well developed in the Old Testament, does not mean the Holy Spirit was not active in the Old Testament in the way He is in the New Testament. Now, of course, there are differences in His activity. In the Old Testament, He regenerates and indwells "believers" on a case-by-case basis. In the New Testament, He indwells all believers. But to say His operation if fundamentally different between the testaments is just wrong.

The Old Testament does not have a well-developed understanding of the state after death. The New Testament greatly informs our understanding of these things. But, we are not to assume that there was no such thing as an afterlife in the Old Testament simply because it isn't well developed until the New. That would be absurd. But, it's just as absurd to suggest that the Spirit's work is fundamentally different in the New Testament just because His work isn't fully described in the Old.

This is what we call "Progressive Revelation." The story line of redemption, etc. are unfolded progressively in the text of Scripture. So, David, for instance, knew more about God's plan of redemption (for example) than Abraham or Moses did.

The error you're making--and many Dispys make this grave error--is that you do not see the Bible as a unified, progressive revelation.

Absolutely I understand what living water is. Do you? It appears that you don't because you take the metaphor too far. Are we really to believe that the Holy Spirit will flow out of us when Christ says He (the Spirit) flows from Him (Christ) and the Father?

That's what happens when you don't understand the background to Jesus' words in John 7--The Feast of Booths....

Perhaps you should return to the study desk.....

The Archangel

 

Let's look at what some others say:
First, A.T. Robertson:

The word is more accurately translated "destructive," and heresies is a word that is related to "making a choice." People choose to believe in the destructive beliefs that they do.

What Wesley holds to is quite interesting:

--This is what I have said all along--Christ bought even them that perish.

This is what Adam Clarke states:

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown says this:

The KJV uses "damnable" but destructive is a better translation.
It is heretical in that it is divisive, a choice to err from the truth.

In that respect I have personally seen what Calvinism has done in many churches. Brought in by a few it has divided the leadership, split the church, caused divisions by its controversial doctrines leaving nothing but heart-ache in its wake.

 

You mean and cannot mean what John says it means. John (via the Holy Spirit inspiration) makes it crystal clear what it means - Living Water.

You seriously think John meant the Holy Spirit was a liquid? That is ridiculous. Let's see what John said the Holy Spirit is called in this indwelling work...."He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

Did Jesus call the Holy Spirit living water? "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

I will ask you again, what is this "living water" Jesus declared He would give? (And it is not a liquid, you can rule that one out)

You believe John didn't call the Holy Spirit living water and you declare I am lacking theology? Really?

David also prays for God to "create a clean heart" within him. Which if you understood regeneration, you would understand David was being prophetic.

This whole statement is just wrong, and has no biblical foundation. It's derived from Calvinism's flawed understanding of how the New Covenant works.

So when God says He will do a "New thing" and He will change the heart, you say "No God, you have been doing this since Adam, you really mean you will just tell us later".

You have demonstrated you have no idea what this living water is Jesus and John spoke of. You have yet to give an answer. We are all still waiting........

 

steaver;

We are not all still waiting Steaver...we all read the answer and see what you do not:laugh: You just were answered and evidently did not understand the answer:wavey:

Your agenda fails because you are not rooted in scriptural based and accurate understanding:thumbs:

 

Do you have anything substantive to offer to the debate? Do you know what the living water is John and Jesus spoke of? Please share...